THE BOTANICAL RESULTS OF CAPTAIN COOK’S THREE VOYAGES AND THEIR LATER INFLUENCE by William T. Steam The contribution to knowledge deriving from a scientific expedition de- pends not only upon the quantity and quality of material gathered but also and equally upon the skill and speed with which this is studied and the resulting information published. As the gap between collecting and publication increases, so likewise does the probability of later dupli- cated effort making the original work of little or no practical value-- historically interesting, a waste indeed of both labor and expenditure. A sad example of this is provided by the Spanish voyage to the Pacific Ocean under the command of Alessandro Malaspina in 1789-93. Its ob- jectives were both scientific and political, as were those of Cook’s voy- ages, which it sought to emulate. These included a survey of the Span- ish possessions in the Pacific, their natural history, their mutual political and economic relations and the best routes for commercial navigation. On the voyage itself most of its aims were successful. Nevertheless, as said elsewhere, “in histories of Pacific exploration Malaspina’s voyage usually receives the least attention, for no recording of undiscovered is- lands, no series of published charts, no major narratives stand to its credit. This was not the fault of its enterprising commander Allessandro Malaspina (1754-1809), an Italian aristocrat who spent most of his life in the service of Spain. The expedition was expertly planned, very well equipped and brilliantly staffed, and was potentially the most important to leave Spain.”1 It carried Thaddaeus Haenke, Luis Nee, and Antonio Pineda as naturalists. Their devoted labors during the voyage came vir- tually to nothing in Spain on their return because of a lack of apprecia- tion or mismanagement by officials; moreover an intrigue at the Span- ish Court, apparently caused by jealousy of Malaspina’s popularity and achievement, led to his imprisonment from 1796 to 1803. Consequently the only major botanical result of so much painstaking work in little- known regions on the expedition itself is C. Presl’s Reliquiae Haen- keanae published not in Spain but in Bohemia in 1825-35, by which time other botanists had already described and named many of the new species. Thus the specimens collected by Haenke at Nootka Sound, Vancouver, in 1791 had to wait until 1825-35 for recording. 1W. T. Steam, An introduction to K. B. Presl’s Reliquiae Haenkeanae, prefixed to fac- simile of Reliquiae Haenkeanae (Amsterdam: A. Ascher, 1973). 147 148 Botanical Results of Cooks’s Voyages The Malaspina voyage is indeed an extreme case of frustrated effort. Nevertheless, none of the eighteenth-century Pacific exploring voyages, even those of Bougainville, Cook, Vancouver, and d’Entrecasteaux, yielded natural history results commensurate with the collections and observations diligently made upon them. The reasons for these relative failures are various and complex, attributable partly to the characters of the leading persons concerned, partly to the inadequate organization of research at this time, partly sometimes to political and social circum- stances. These must all be kept in mind when assessing the contribution to biological knowledge made by Cook’s three voyages of discovery. Each one took able naturalists into then unexplored regions of the Pa- cific abounding with plants and animals new to science and presenting unimagined opportunities for collecting and recording. Each one brought back to England a wealth of specimens, notes, and drawings. As Whitehead has remarked, “there is indeed a lamentable contrast be- tween the determination, courage, good planning and great care that attended the collection of all this material, and the series of delays, mis- fortunes, dissensions, intrigues (and at times downright malice) that so beset the publication of the results of the journals as well as of the sci- entific results.”2 In consequence, the far from negligible biological as- pects of Cook’s three voyages have tended to be obscured by the suc- cess of his cartographical work and his attention to health at sea. Nevertheless, despite piecemeal and incomplete publication, the bot- anical and zoological material from these voyages made a contribution to knowledge which, although it could have been much greater, re- mains important. It thus still merits study, as recent illustrated pub- lications have made evident.3 The three voyages of Cook were, however, very different as regards their immediate impact and later influence despite having the Pacific Ocean with its continental bounds and multitudinous islands as their common field of enquiry and Cook as their commander. The contrasts 2P. J. Whitehead, Forty Drawings of Fishes Made by the Artists Who Accompanied James Cook on His Three Voyages to the Pacific (London: British Museum, 1968). 3A. C. Begg and N. C. Begg, Dusky Bay, 2nd ed. (Christchurch, New Zealand: Whit- combe & Tombs, 1968); W. Blunt and W. T. Steam, Captain Cook’s Florilegum (London: Lion & Unicorn Press at Royal College of Art, 1973); E. D. Merrill, The Botany of Cook’s Voyages (Waltham, Mass.: Chronica Botanica, 1954); W. T. Stearn, “A Royal Society Ap- pointment with Venus in 1969: The Voyage of Cook and Banks in the Endeavour in 1768-1771 and Its Botanical Results,” Notes and Rec. Royal Society, London, 24 (1969), 64-90; W. T. Steam, “Sir Joseph Banks (1743-1820) and Australian Botany,” Rec. Austra- lian Academy of Science, 2 (1974), iv, 7-24; and Whitehead as indicated in footnote 2. Botanical Results of Cooks’s Voyages 149 illustrate the interplay of personalities and circumstances. The pioneer- ing first voyage of 1768-71 in the Endeavour had wealthy young Jo- seph Banks and the erudite, genial Daniel Solander as its naturalists. The second of 1772-75 in the Resolution and Discovery had the erudite but easily disgruntled, self-opinionated Johann Reinhold Forster (rightly designated “the tactless philosopher” by Hoare)4 his brilliant, amiable, over-shadowed son George, and their competent, steady Swedish assist- ant, Andreas Sparrman, in many respects like his older compatriot So- lander. The third and fatal voyage of 1776-80 had the consumptive naval surgeon William Anderson and the gardener David Nelson. These were men of very different character and achievement. Fortunately the generic names Andersonia, Banksia, Forstera, Nelsonia, Solandra, and Sparmannia impartially commemorate them all. The first voyage brought back the best, the most extensive, and the most valuable mate- rial but produced little of immediate biological importance. The second resulted in a publication immediately fixing the names of many plant genera but little else then. The third yielded virtually nothing at the time but even in 1976 provided material for the description of extinct Hawaiian species. Cook’s First Voyage The avowed object of Cook’s first voyage of global circum- navigation was astronomical, i.e., to observe in 1769 from .a Pacific Ocean island the transit of the planet Venus across the disc of the sun, but its secret and political object was to search for the hypothetical great southern continent and ascertain its existence or otherwise be- cause this could affect the balance of power in Europe between Britain and France. The British government made no provision for biological exploration. The natural history results were entirely due to the partici- pation in the voyage of a private citizen, Joseph Banks (1743-1820), recommended by the Royal Society to the Admiralty as “a gentleman of large fortune who is well-versed in natural history.” He took with him Daniel Solander as scientific companion; H. Spöring as naturalist secretary, H. Buchan and Sydney Parkinson as artists, and two white and two black servants. He also took a good working library of natural history books, of which those by Solander’s teacher, Linnaeus, would have been the most useful, and masses of collecting equipment. The 4Michael E. Hoare, The Tactless Philosopher, Johann Reinhold Forster, 1729-1798 (Melbourne: Hawthorne Press, 1976). 150 Botanical Results of Cooks’s Voyages Endeavour sailed from Plymouth on 26 August 1768 and many years passed before another ship left England so well furnished with scientific personnel and equipment. The voyage carried them to Madeira, Brazil, Tierra de1 Fuego, Tahiti, New Zealand, eastern Australia from Botany Bay to Cape York, and Java; everywhere possible they collected all they could and accordingly brought back to England on 15 July 1771 such a quantity of specimens, drawings, and notes as had never reached Europe before. Banks planned to make this new knowledge available by publication but planned to do so in the grand style with superb folio engraved plates of the plants befitting the magnitude of the voyage. Herein one can detect the influence upon Banks of his social position and his ear- lier antiquarian interests; the Endeavour voyage had been for him the equivalent on a grander scale of the Grand-Tour customary in the edu- cation of an aristocratic young Englishman; large engraved illustrations became an essential feature of eighteenth-century works on antiquities. Unfortunately such illustrations made the whole of Banks’s ambitious undertaking a costly failure. On the voyage, Solander wrote Latin de- scriptions of the plants that remain admirable: J. D. Hooker in the Flora Novae-Zelandiae5 stated that “his descriptions have never been surpassed for fulness, terseness and accuracy” and, coming from an au- thority on the New Zealand and Antarctic flora so scholarly and expe- rienced as Hooker, that is praise indeed. A student of Linnaeus at Up- psala and well versed in the master’s methods, Solander allocated the new genera and species to their positions within the Linnaean sexual system of classification and coined names for them which remaining too long unpublished have, as Hooker remarked, “in most cases been re- placed by others, often applied with far less judgment.” He had worked so hard on the voyage that the task of revising and completing his manuscripts and preparing them for publication when back in London cannot have daunted him.